File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Comparison of gastric insufflation using LMA-supreme and I-gel versus tracheal intubation in laparoscopic gynecological surgery by ultrasound: a randomized observational trial

TitleComparison of gastric insufflation using LMA-supreme and I-gel versus tracheal intubation in laparoscopic gynecological surgery by ultrasound: a randomized observational trial
Authors
KeywordsGastric insufflation
Laparoscopic
Supraglottic airway devices
Ultrasound
Issue Date2020
PublisherBioMed Central Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcanesthesiol/
Citation
BMC Anesthesiology, 2020, v. 20, p. article no. 136 How to Cite?
AbstractBackground: The application of bedside ultrasound to evaluate gastric content and volume can assist in determining aspiration risk. Applying positive pressure ventilation via supraglottic airway devices (SAD) can result in a degree of gastric insufflation. This study assessed and compared the antral cross-sectional area (CSA) in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery when managed with different SAD. Methods: One hundred American Society of Anesthesiologists I or II female patients were assessed for inclusion in this study and divided into three groups of different ventilation devices. Patients were randomly allocated into three groups to receive LMA-Supreme (Group S), I-gel (Group I) or tracheal tube (Group T). The primary outcome was the antral cross-sectional area and secondary outcomes included haemodynamic parameters and postoperative morbidity such as sore throat, hoarseness, dry throat, nausea and vomiting. Results: The antral CSA was not significantly different among three groups before induction (P = 0.451), after induction (P = 0.456) and at the end of surgery (P = 0.195). The haemodynamic variables were significantly higher in the tracheal tube group than in the LMA-Supreme and I-gel groups after insertion (P < 0.0001) and after removal (P < 0.01). Sore throat was detected in none in the I-gel group compare to two patients (6.7%) in the LMA-Supreme group and fifteen patients (50%) in the tracheal tube group. Hoareness was detected in one (3.3%) in the I-gel group compare to two patients (6.7%) in the LMA-Supreme group and eleven patients (36.7%) in the tracheal tube group. Conclusions: The SADs do not cause obvious gastric insufflation. Thus, LMA-Supreme and I-gel can be widely used as alternative to endotracheal intubation for the short laparoscopic gynecological surgery. Trial registration: This trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR1800018212, data of registration, September 2018).
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/283358
ISSN
2019 Impact Factor: 1.695
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.655
PubMed Central ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorYe, Q-
dc.contributor.authorWu, D-
dc.contributor.authorFang, W-
dc.contributor.authorWong, GTC-
dc.contributor.authorLu, Y-
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-22T02:55:27Z-
dc.date.available2020-06-22T02:55:27Z-
dc.date.issued2020-
dc.identifier.citationBMC Anesthesiology, 2020, v. 20, p. article no. 136-
dc.identifier.issn1471-2253-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/283358-
dc.description.abstractBackground: The application of bedside ultrasound to evaluate gastric content and volume can assist in determining aspiration risk. Applying positive pressure ventilation via supraglottic airway devices (SAD) can result in a degree of gastric insufflation. This study assessed and compared the antral cross-sectional area (CSA) in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery when managed with different SAD. Methods: One hundred American Society of Anesthesiologists I or II female patients were assessed for inclusion in this study and divided into three groups of different ventilation devices. Patients were randomly allocated into three groups to receive LMA-Supreme (Group S), I-gel (Group I) or tracheal tube (Group T). The primary outcome was the antral cross-sectional area and secondary outcomes included haemodynamic parameters and postoperative morbidity such as sore throat, hoarseness, dry throat, nausea and vomiting. Results: The antral CSA was not significantly different among three groups before induction (P = 0.451), after induction (P = 0.456) and at the end of surgery (P = 0.195). The haemodynamic variables were significantly higher in the tracheal tube group than in the LMA-Supreme and I-gel groups after insertion (P < 0.0001) and after removal (P < 0.01). Sore throat was detected in none in the I-gel group compare to two patients (6.7%) in the LMA-Supreme group and fifteen patients (50%) in the tracheal tube group. Hoareness was detected in one (3.3%) in the I-gel group compare to two patients (6.7%) in the LMA-Supreme group and eleven patients (36.7%) in the tracheal tube group. Conclusions: The SADs do not cause obvious gastric insufflation. Thus, LMA-Supreme and I-gel can be widely used as alternative to endotracheal intubation for the short laparoscopic gynecological surgery. Trial registration: This trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR1800018212, data of registration, September 2018).-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherBioMed Central Ltd. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcanesthesiol/-
dc.relation.ispartofBMC Anesthesiology-
dc.rightsBMC Anesthesiology. Copyright © BioMed Central Ltd.-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.subjectGastric insufflation-
dc.subjectLaparoscopic-
dc.subjectSupraglottic airway devices-
dc.subjectUltrasound-
dc.titleComparison of gastric insufflation using LMA-supreme and I-gel versus tracheal intubation in laparoscopic gynecological surgery by ultrasound: a randomized observational trial-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailWong, GTC: gordon@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityWong, GTC=rp00523-
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12871-020-01057-z-
dc.identifier.pmid32493213-
dc.identifier.pmcidPMC7268504-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85085979105-
dc.identifier.hkuros310391-
dc.identifier.volume20-
dc.identifier.spagearticle no. 136-
dc.identifier.epagearticle no. 136-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats